a . “Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.” Pitman, p. 71.

u “Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen. Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?” Taylor, p. 177.

u “There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ...” Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), p. 56.

u “Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.” Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

u Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

d . An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?